John 18:28-32 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas to the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall… THE FIRST APPEAL (ver. 29). What response was made (ver. 30)? Here we have — 1. Baseless calumny. "If He were not aa evil-doer — meaning that that was a well-attested fact. But what evil had He done? The calumny was implied rather than expressed, and thus it generally works. Assuming wrong in the character traduced, it expresses it in oblique innuendo, a nod of the head, a shrug of the shoulders," &c. 2. Arrogated superiority. "If he had not," &c., we could not have done such a thing — so vital is our sympathy with rectitude — we, oh no, not for the world. There is a good deal of social influence in arrogated superiority. Let a man assume that he is a great thinker, or scholar, or pre-eminently holy, and credulous fools will believe him. As a rule our contemporaries take us not for what we are, but for what we assume to be. 3. Crouching sychophancy. "To thee" — the great judge — deeming it an honour to Pilate. Corrupt men always work out their best designs by crawling servility to men in power. II. THE SECOND APPEAL (ver. 31). The response showed that — 1. They were animated by a mortal malice — nothing but Christ's death would satisfy them. 2. Thus mortal malice was restrained by Providence. (1) Public law. They would have inflicted capital punishment had not the law taken away that power. (2) A Divine decree (ver. 32). Had it been left to the Jews, Christ would have been stoned. Sinners live under a grand system of restraints, otherwise the world would be a Pandemonium. (D. Thomas, D. D.) Parallel Verses KJV: Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. |
    |